A Bergen County judge ruled Tuesday that wording in a referendum asking Hackensack voters whether to approve $170 million in financing for school district projects was misleading.

The referendum, in which the district seeks financing to build a school, among other projects, is being held next week, and the interpretive statement omitted the words "per year" on a statement explaining the potential tax impact. A residents group complained that the statement could lead some voters to think that the impact was thousands of dollars less than presented.

Judge Estela M. De La Cruz, of Superior Court in Hackensack, ordered the rewrite of the ballot question on voting machines, so that the words "per year" are added to the statement explaining the financial impact of the referendum measure for taxpayers.

“It is an extraordinarily expensive commitment that the citizens of Hackensack would be approving,” De La Cruz said in court. “And I believe under these circumstances the citizens of Hackensack deserve to have an actual, accurate language on their ballot to reflect the expense that they are expected to bear.”

The question will now reflect that the proposal, if approved, would cost the average homeowner “$308.66 per year, for 30 years.” The order excludes changing any mail-in ballots that have already been printed. In some cases, votes have already been cast in next week's special election.

The omission of the words “per year” translates to a roughly $9,000 mistake if misunderstood by voters.

Hackensack Smart Schools Inc. filed suit Monday, alleging this is the second time that school district materials minimized the financial impact the measure would have on taxpayers. The complaint named the Hackensack Board of Education, the Bergen County clerk and the county Board of Elections.

School officials this week admitted that the ballot omitted the two-word phrase but said it was too late to correct the question because ballots had already been printed. The school board, per the order, are expected to foot the bill to amend the ballots.

“The board came here in good faith and open-minded,” John G. Geppert, the school board’s attorney, said after court. “We were willing to consider the resolution of the matter, and we will gladly comply with the judge’s order.”

The referendum issue is estimated to cost the average taxpayer roughly $300 annually.

NEWSLETTERS

Get the Breaking News newsletter delivered to your inbox

We're sorry, but something went wrong

Get breaking news from all around North Jersey delivered to your inbox as soon as it happens.

However, the local group said the language in the ballot question reads that the proposal will cost the average household "$308 over 30 years” — misleading voters to believe the proposal will cost the average taxpayer $10 annually by omitting the words “per year” from the phrase.

Attorneys representing the board in court, however, argued that a reasonable person would understand that a $170 million referendum would yield an impact far greater than a couple hundred dollars annually. They also pointed to materials issued by the board in recent months that reflected that the roughly $300 expense would be annual.

"I don't believe that a reasonable person reading that would believe that over a 30-year period, that it would only cost them $300," said Eric D. McCullough, an attorney representing the board in court. "I don't believe that an average person would do that."

Martin Cramer, an attorney and trustee with the residents group, argued the group's case in court. On Tuesday, he re-emphasized that he saw the omission of the words as intentional, but he was glad that the ballot question would be amended. He added that his intention was never to have the election stopped or postponed.

“It’s what I expected. It’s what I asked for. I never wanted to stop” the referendum, Cramer said after court. “I don’t know where they got that from. I always just wanted to get the ballots fixed.”

The judge added a second caveat to the court order. She asked that the school board refrain from advocating in support of or opposition to the ballot measure — something that Cramer had requested, but that attorneys representing the school board argued the board had not done.

“I am also concerned about the potential of the Board of Education engaging in some sort of advocacy in support of the question,” De La Cruz said.

The judge said the ruling did not imply that the board had advocated in favor of the referendum, but included that portion “to err on the side of caution."

Geppert after court reiterated that the board had not lobbied in favor of the referendum measure. Instead, he said, the hand-outs distributed to residents at public meetings, for example, are purely informational.

“The board has been even-handed,” Geppert said. “As [the judge] said, she hasn’t seen advocacy in the past, and we’ve been presenting information in a factual basis according to law.”

School officials said Monday that the district planned to distribute a city-wide mailing, to arrive in residents' mailboxes later this week, to reflect the correct wording for the ballot question — in an effort to address the concerns raised by the residents group.

Officials said the district had explored the potential of reprinting ballots, but were advised by counsel of “legal hurdles” that might arise because the referendum is next week. Those hurdles included the cost of reprinting ballots that were already distributed, which could have added an expense upward of tens of thousands of dollars. It is unclear how much the current court order to amend ballots will cost the board.

District officials have presented the $170 million proposal at various public meetings since June, and have two more planned this week ahead of the special election.

Officials will be hosting a "referendum fair" on Tuesday night, beginning at 7 p.m. at Hackensack High School, and another town hall on Wednesday at Jackson Avenue School.